Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Politician take money from one group of people and pass it out to another like candy, to buy their votes. This is nothing. You should just be happy you don't live in a country where the politics really is war with bloodshed.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Politician take money from one group of people and pass it out to another like candy, to buy their votes. This is nothing. You should just be happy you don't live in a country where the politics really is war with bloodshed.

I agree politics is war. But my point is one shouldn't use shady politics as an example of superior morality.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher

Politician take money from one group of people and pass it out to another like candy, to buy their votes. This is nothing. You should just be happy you don't live in a country where the politics really is war with bloodshed.

I agree politics is war. But my point is one shouldn't use shady politics as an example of superior morality.

Don't forget - they're enamored of the notion that they can do what they want as long as they believe in the Jesus.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Just because they haven't broken any rules doesn't make it morally ok. Rules are usually made after people decide the behavior is wrong, not before. So my statement still stands. It's not a sign of superior morals.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher

From the perspective of Rush and his ditto-heads, it might be perfectly moral to use whatever means necessary to get their candidate in the White House. They don't want a Dem in power....someone who believes in killing 'pre-born' babies and 'cutting and running' in Iraq...for them, the ends may justify the means.

For my part, I think it's incredibly slimy (but not out of character) for Rush and his ilk. I'm just saying that they might see it as moral.

I'd recommend that you read the science book first, and then see how the next book lines up with it. Heaven forbid I be accused of not knowing the difference between science and politics. And heaven also forbid anyone with a political stance actually having something meaningful to say...

Yes, I'm talking to you, EXC

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I'd recommend that you read the science book first, and then see how the next book lines up with it. Heaven forbid I be accused of not knowing the difference between science and politics. And heaven also forbid anyone with a political stance actually having something meaningful to say...

Yes, I'm talking to you, EXC

The problem with books like this (and the books on atheist/religious arguments too, for that matter) is that the people who need to read them won't. The people who read them mostly already agree or at least on the fence and leaning that way. The ones who could actually learn something from them wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher

The funny thing is that if someone doesn't know immediately what is in these books, it wouldn't hurt them to read them. It's also damn funny how many people are sure they know what's in them without reading them.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

The funny thing is that if someone doesn't know immediately what is in these books, it wouldn't hurt them to read them. It's also damn funny how many people are sure they know what's in them without reading them.

Having no idea what these two books are about, I guess I'll be spending some more time reading. It's no wonder I never get to watch tv anymore. Can I buy "The Authoritarian Specter" & "Conservatives Without Conscience" through RRS.

The problem with books like this (and the books on atheist/religious arguments too, for that matter) is that the people who need to read them won't. The people who read them mostly already agree or at least on the fence and leaning that way. The ones who could actually learn something from them wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole.

Yes, I should get listen to people tell me how compassionate they are with other people's money. I should learn to support taking money away from people who legitimately earned it. That will do wonders to end poverty and improve the work ethic.

If you're so concerned about giving to help those in need, why waste your time reading books? Take a second job and give all this extra income to those who need compassion. Why is it you liberals are so generous with others peoples' money? Take a second job if you're so compassionate.

Instead liberals put a gun to people's head(via the tax man) to take their income, then tell everyone they're a pacifist and committed to nonviolent solutions. Gimma a break! I should read books from lying hypocrites like this?

I'm not a right wing religious conservative. I'm libertarian except when it comes to education and protecting the environment. There the government has a strong role to play.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Having no idea what these two books are about, I guess I'll be spending some more time reading. It's no wonder I never get to watch tv anymore. Can I buy "The Authoritarian Specter" & "Conservatives Without Conscience" through RRS.

Yes. Just follow the Amazon.com link on the side panel of this site, and then do a search for the books. Whatever you buy after you've linked from here will send a small percentage of the sale to the RRS operating fund.

The Authoritarian Specter is only available in hardback, and it's pretty expensive, so you'll want to see what they have in the used section, unless you feel like plunking down $45 bucks. (It's a really good book.)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Yes, I should get listen to people tell me how compassionate they are with other people's money. I should learn to support taking money away from people who legitimately earned it. That will do wonders to end poverty and improve the work ethic.

If you're so concerned about giving to help those in need, why waste your time reading books? Take a second job and give all this extra income to those who need compassion. Why is it you liberals are so generous with others peoples' money? Take a second job if you're so compassionate.

Instead liberals put a gun to people's head(via the tax man) to take their income, then tell everyone they're a pacifist and committed to nonviolent solutions. Gimma a break! I should read books from lying hypocrites like this?

I'm not a right wing religious conservative. I'm libertarian except when it comes to education and protecting the environment. There the government has a strong role to play.

You don't have to be religious to be a right-wing conservative. If you're not one then why are you getting so defensive? I wasn't talking about Libertarians (although the "Western" Republican is pretty much the same thing).

Your views of liberals are as prejudiced and uninformed as theists' views of atheists are.

I am generous with my own money. I give to several charities on a regular basis. But even if I took a second job I'm only one person and can't make much of a difference with my income alone.

Liberals don't want to hold a gun to anyone's head. You're making shit up. Public funding initiatives are voted in like anything else. I don't want to take rich people's money away from them to make them poor, or even to make everyone middle class. I want to see an end to bullshit like a big corporate CEO giving himself a $125 million dollar salary, laying off 500 of the poorest employees, then having the audacity to "reward" himself with another $5 million bonus for having cut expenses. It would hardly have made the CEO poor to have taken a few mil out of his salary and saved those jobs. And, then on top of that, the government gives his corporation a bigger tax break while cutting back on public services such as school funding? You don't see a problem with this system?

Republicans want the generosity of charities to help those in need so no one should ever be forced to contribute to the betterment of their community. In an ideal world I'd agree. But with corporate BS like that going on all over the place you obviously can't depend on it. There are already thousands of charites out there but obviously they're not getting enough "generosity" to do it all.

And another criticism anti-liberals seem to have is that we want to take everyone's money and give it all away to someone else. Republicans are often whining about the government "stealing" their money as if they get absolutely nothing in return. Hardly. Public services benefit everyone. But even the weathiest who don't directly benefit from it still benefit from living in a better society. Do you really want to live in a mansion on the hill that's surrounded by shanty towns? And do you want to depend on the generosity of others to make services like poilice and fire charity-funded. What happens when the rich are too greedy to support your local fire department and the poor are too poor and your house catches on fire?

You also wrongly believe that liberals want to give people a free ride. Not true either. But neither should anyone be deprived of the opportunity for a better life due to unfortunate circumstances, often beyond their control. It's easy for someone born to a rich family in upstate NY to assume those born to a poor rural family in AL just aren't working hard enough. But the opportunities are completely different and not of their own making. I'm hardly for giving everyone free money. I'm glad they put a limit on how long you can stay on welfare. It was too often being abused. I agree that our welfare system is messed up. That doesn't mean it should be eliminated, as many Republicans would like to see happen. Ideally it should give people public service jobs while taking job training classes, not a free paycheck to sit home and watch TV.

Stephanie Coontz is a preeminent social scientist, and has spent decades compiling data from every possible source, as well as doing direct studies. She has put together a scientific and statistical model of what America is and has been, devoid of either liberal or conservative "talking points." In fact, if you're a die hard liberal, you'll be challenged in many ways by reading this. (Not as much as if you're a die hard conservative, but still, you'll be challenged.)

The chapters that have the most bearing on this discussion have to do with the notion of "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps," charity vs. public support, and the dynamics of the welfare system. Also, the notion of the extended family as a support mechanism is examined in detail.

EXC, do you have any idea how happy it would make me to see you respond to this book chapter by chapter? You've got a lot of irrational beliefs that are simply not supported by any real science. Actually, I'd suggest that you ought to read The Authoritarian Specter first. You might find the mirror a little harsh, but it might do you some good to realize some of your own tendencies in a larger context.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

EXC, do you have any idea how happy it would make me to see you respond to this book chapter by chapter? You've got a lot of irrational beliefs that are simply not supported by any real science. Actually, I'd suggest that you ought to read The Authoritarian Specter first. You might find the mirror a little harsh, but it might do you some good to realize some of your own tendencies in a larger context.

I'm about as far from authoritarian as one can be. I don't get it, people here claim they don't want an authoritarian God to be our sugar daddy. Seems like all the liberal atheists just want the government to be everyone's sugar daddy, government as God. How about a society where the goal is for everyone to be self sufficient and mind their own business? We don't need God cause government can take care of everyone. How about no sugar daddies heavenly or earthly?

I doesn't matter, you'll use the facts of science to justify stealing money from people who legitimately earned to just give to people and receive nothing in return. I'll use it to justify a rational libertarianism, where the goal is to make people self sufficient instead of passing out money to everyone that whines really loud.

I'm not a dittohead, but Limbaugh is a reaction to the authoritanism of liberals that want to tell everyone what is compassion. Liberals that don't use logic and common sense to solve problems.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Exec, lumping all us liberals into that mess is what's irrational. Sure, it's not difficult to find wingnuts who want the government to provide infinite bread and circuses for us, but that's not all liberals any more than cold, money-grubbing individualists is all libertarians.

By the way, you're being hyberbolic when you say "the goal is to make people self sufficient", right? Because that's simply not possible. Too many handicaps, interdependancies and real inabilities out there for it.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray

I'm about as far from authoritarian as one can be. I don't get it, people here claim they don't want an authoritarian God to be our sugar daddy. Seems like all the liberal atheists just want the government to be everyone's sugar daddy, government as God. How about a society where the goal is for everyone to be self sufficient and mind their own business? We don't need God cause government can take care of everyone. How about no sugar daddies heavenly or earthly?

I doesn't matter, you'll use the facts of science to justify stealing money from people who legitimately earned to just give to people and receive nothing in return. I'll use it to justify a rational libertarianism, where the goal is to make people self sufficient instead of passing out money to everyone that whines really loud.

You obviously didn't read my post at all since you just repeated everything I already argued against. Liberals don't want a sugar daddy government. They want everyone to be self-sufficent just like you do. But not everyone is at the starting line when the gun fires. Some people need help getting self-sufficient often due to circumstances beyond their control. Liberals want to help people become self-sufficient so they're not living on the goverment. A hand up, not a hand out. But your lot are more like, "Tough shit, every man for himself. Born to a poor family in rural AL? Too bad. Dig yourself out of the pit on your own. That's what you get for being born to shitty parents." So that's the difference. We both want people to be self-sufficient. The difference is, if they're not self-sufficient from the get-go, liberals want to help them get there while you'd rather they just go off in the woods and die.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher

So, let's play this game again. Have you actually read The Authoritarian Specter or are you just saying this because you know... because the guy who wrote the book on it is a liberal, and therefore you're not authoritarian?

Quote:

I doesn't matter, you'll use the facts of science to justify stealing money from people who legitimately earned to just give to people and receive nothing in return.

Have you ever seen me claim this?

Quote:

I'm not a dittohead, but Limbaugh is a reaction to the authoritanism of liberals that want to tell everyone what is compassion. Liberals that don't use logic and common sense to solve problems.

Horseshit. You need to get back to some of those facts you were talking about. Your knowledge of actual events compared to political rhetoric is lacking.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I'd recommend that you read the science book first, and then see how the next book lines up with it. Heaven forbid I be accused of not knowing the difference between science and politics. And heaven also forbid anyone with a political stance actually having something meaningful to say...

Great reference material, but do realize the foundation for John Dean's book above came from his long time friend Dr. Bob Altemeyer.

For a FREE read into the psychotic mind of the RWA [Right Wing Authoritarian] Personality [Disorder] finding it's formation from a Christian upbringing go here to The Authoritarians by Doctor Robert Altemeyer and download the pdf files making up that free book.

'For months, Limbaugh urged his listeners in states with open primaries to cross party lines and support Clinton in an effort he has dubbed "Operation Chaos."'

'"Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary," (Sen. John Kerry) said on a conference call with reporters. "If it was not for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, [Obama] would have won."'

Are the "immoral" liberals pulling this kind of crap? No, as far as I know, the Dems appear more willing to play fair.

Limbaugh is no more or less human than we are. If left and right, liberal v conservitive, Christian vs muslim, Christian vs atheist hasn't gotten it yet, let me clue you in. Life is not the mystery humans make it out to be. Life is about the obtaining of resources. They do it, we do it. The sense of "fair play" is a matter of human empathy. To say he is wrong is one thing, to say he cant feel empathy skews life in general.

If Limbaugh gravitates to that which he is familure, what makes us think we don't do anything less different? This is not a matter of position, but the phycology of what makes us all human.

We don't have to sugar coat our position, neither them or us. We don't have to bow to the other. We DO as a species, have to recognize that the battle is the same no matter the position. WE all want to continue. We all want to survive.

How atheists can beat people like Limbaugh, is not only to point out the absurdiety of his magical claims, but in addition SHOW him that we are no different. We are flawed, we are imperfect, we have the same wants and needs as he does.

Limbaugh is dead wrong on the existance of a deity just as Tut was wrong on the existance of Horus. But Limbaugh is the same as us in that he is human and makes mistakes, just as we do. Better logic never comes through a sledge hammer, better thought comes through SHOWING.

Limbaugh is nothing but a ratings whore and a poster child for rusty idealism. BUT, WE must not allow people like him fear us. Limbaugh is the scared bully who knows that his Linus blanket is nothing more than a placebo. We dont have to opress people to demonstrate better logic. We do have to recognize that a human is a human.

So lets show Limbaugh that he is too dense to show us. Lets show him that he cannot compete with us. Not because we want to harm him. But that he cannot demonstrate the claims he makes. He can no more demonstrate the god of Jesus, than a Muslim can Allah.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Yes, I should get listen to people tell me how compassionate they are with other people's money. I should learn to support taking money away from people who legitimately earned it. That will do wonders to end poverty and improve the work ethic.

The government doesn't redistribute wealth to create a financial equilibrium but to provide an equal opportunity for success among the citizenry, which our economy requires. Those who live in prosperous ease, you do so due to the prior generations redistributing their wealth to help others enter the workforce, provide education to teachers and authors, pave the roads that facilitate the transportion of the books written by those authors and employed by those teachers, et cetera. Contrary to libertarian conceit, people do not pull themselves up from their own bootstraps. It was society, not you, that payed for your opportunity to succeed, and you owe society a great deal for that. The "taxation is theft" idea is another libertarian conceit that gives them the false impression that they can eat at society's restaurant and skip the bill.